Rahbarian v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2:14-cv-1488-JAM-KJN. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160531c52
Visitors: 11
Filed: May 27, 2016
Latest Update: May 27, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . On May 26, 2016, this case was before the undersigned to address defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("defendant") motion to compel plaintiff Paiman Rahbarian ("plaintiff") to produce supplemental responses to defendant's Special Interrogatories numbers 1 through 7 and Requests for Production numbers 1 through 30. (ECF No. 36.) Attorney Eric Mercer appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Attorney Will Riffelmacher appeared telephonically on behalf of d
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . On May 26, 2016, this case was before the undersigned to address defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("defendant") motion to compel plaintiff Paiman Rahbarian ("plaintiff") to produce supplemental responses to defendant's Special Interrogatories numbers 1 through 7 and Requests for Production numbers 1 through 30. (ECF No. 36.) Attorney Eric Mercer appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Attorney Will Riffelmacher appeared telephonically on behalf of de..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, District Judge.
On May 26, 2016, this case was before the undersigned to address defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s ("defendant") motion to compel plaintiff Paiman Rahbarian ("plaintiff") to produce supplemental responses to defendant's Special Interrogatories numbers 1 through 7 and Requests for Production numbers 1 through 30. (ECF No. 36.) Attorney Eric Mercer appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Attorney Will Riffelmacher appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant.
Based on defendant's motion and statement regarding this discovery dispute, other relevant filings, and oral arguments, and for the reasons discussed below and on the record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion to compel (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff shall produce supplemental responses to defendant's Special Interrogatories numbers 1 through 7 and Requests for Production numbers 1 through 30 by no later than the discovery deadline of June 3, 2016, unless the parties stipulate to extend the discovery deadline and such a stipulation is approved by the presiding district judge, in which case plaintiff shall produce his supplemental responses by no later than 10 days after the date on which an order resolving defendant's pending motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 37) is issued, provided that proceedings in this action are to continue after that order is issued.1
3. The court declines to address the issue of any expenses to which defendant may be entitled pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) at this time. However, the court is open to taking into account such expenses relating to the present motion to compel when considering any future discovery motion filed by defendant in this action regarding plaintiff's failure to properly supplement his responses to the discovery requests currently at issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Before filing any stipulated request to extend the discovery deadline in this action, the parties should note that the proposed extended discovery deadline will need to fall on a date after the currently scheduled hearing date for defendant's pending motion for judgment on the pleadings and should take into account any additional time necessary for the district judge to issue a ruling on that motion and for plaintiff to comply with the present order, if necessary.
Source: Leagle
